Thursday, July 5, 2012

Why does Gryphen keep pushing the two-Trigs "Ruffles" theory? Because he is more concerned about protecting his reputation than finding the truth

My greatest mistake as a
scholar and researcher was buying into the two-Trigs theory that Jesse Griffin,
also known as Gryphen at his blog site Immoral Minority, has been pushing for
more than two years now. The original inspiration for that theory was this
picture of Trig taken in early May of 2008:

At first glance, what we
seem to see is a small, deformed ear, and to the side of it, a hole in
the scalp that might be taken for a misaligned ear canal. Griffin showed
this photo to some ear specialists, and they said that smallish, ruffled ear
could not be the same as, say, this ear below, also of Trig, shot in the fall
of 2008:

And Griffin, over and over,
has referred to the judgment of those specialists he consulted as powerful
proof that that there had to be two different babies presented as Trig (the
original came to be known as "Ruffles") – after all, how can
specialists be wrong?

Answer? Very easily. The
mistake in interpreting that early photo came about because the lower part of the
ear was obscured by some cloth. If you rotate the two above photos so the ears
are oriented the same way, you can superimpose the second ear over the first,
and then what you see is a stunning correspondence of the visible parts of the
two ears:

The trapezoid shape in the
middle is the real clincher; it's an extremely distinctive shape. In addition,
we can now see that the supposedly misaligned ear canal in the first photo is
in truth a batwing shape in the lower half of the ear – a shape that is repeated
in the second photo. The first photo presents what artists call a trompe-l'oeil (French for a trick of the eye). But the eye
deception vanishes when you change the orientation of the picture and note that
part of the lower ear is covered by material.There is, to be sure, some ear deformity in the first photo that is less noticeable in the second, but that is surely due to both the aging process (Trig was much younger in the first photo) and optical factors, such as different lighting, lens types, and angles in the two pictures.

Why do I say Griffin is
more interested in protecting his reputation than finding the truth? Because he
absolutely refuses to show his readers the evidence that makes his theory practically untenable – meaning illustrations like the one immediately
above that I showed here in a series of seven posts in October aimed at
killing the two-Trigs theory. Moreover, I would bet a case of beer that Griffin
has not shown the ear experts he consulted the above four-panel composite. If he
did, they would almost certainly change their original judgment.

And that makes Griffin an
intellectual coward. At one point, I tried to direct his readers to my research
by placing in the comments to some of his articles the web addresses to my
ear-related posts. In a personal email to me, he mocked me for doing that and
let me know he would delete any such efforts on my part.

So what do we make of that
email of Griffin’s? What I conclude is very sad: Griffin will not publish
evidence, or even link to evidence, that challenges his own ideas. I cannot overstate
how antithetical such actions are to the spirit of the search for truth, which
is the animating spirit among true scholars.

I'm a trained social
scientist and historian; that’s what my PhD signifies. I have published numerous
articles in scholarly peer-reviewed journals in history, psychology, mass
communications, and law. "Peer-reviewed" means experts in those
fields had read my manuscripts prior to publication to make sure I had taken
into account all relevant research; if I failed to do so, my manuscripts would
have been rejected.

Griffin has become the opposite of a scholar searching for truth. He does not seek out all evidence relevant to a theory he has proposed. Any evidence that contradicts his publicly stated ideas gets axed. He has created a bubble of ignorance for himself and his readers. And,
here is the tragedy: he has empowered Sarah Palin to paint all Trig Truthers as
nut-cases because of his unwillingness to consider evidence or ideas that
challenge his own.

I know from personal
experience how Sarah Palin makes use of Griffin's theory. As I said, before I
looked closely at the evidence, I bought into the two-Trig's idea. (In other
words, I foolishly relied on Griffin’s research, which was shallow and
unimaginative.) And I incorporated that theory into a version of a
magazine-type article about the birth hoax that I sent to various publications
last summer. I also sent a copy to Sarah Palin in August to give her a chance
to respond to my charge that she faked Trig's birth.

Palin did not respond
directly to that article. But in February, months after I had tried to kill the
two-Trigs theory, Palin's attorney sent a six-page letter to my university, in an effort to get my employer to force me to stop writing about Palin. In
that letter, he ignored the fact that I had very publicly rejected the
two-Trigs theory, and instead emphasized that I had advanced it in the article I
sent Palin. And thus he was able to make me look like a gullible idiot in that
letter he wrote, twice referring to my views as "insane."

Our university's attorney,
who has had no reason to follow the Palin birth hoax, clearly bought some his
arguments, in large part because of the implausibility of the two-Trigs stuff.
And I had to suffer the slings and arrows of her withering skepticism about my
research in a meeting she held with me and my two immediate superiors.

And that background helps
explain why I practically went ballistic when Griffin revived the two-Trigs
theory a week ago Saturday. He published this composite:

And he argued that the far
right photo, taken last month, showed that the child known as
"Ruffles" had finally returned, since the helix (or rim) of the ear has a wavy appearance – but that the child shown in the two
middle photos must be a different child who is now unaccounted for.

And I just wanted to scream
IT'S THE SAME CHILD! Unfortunately, in the most recent photo, Trig's hair
covers part of the distinctive trapezoid shape in the middle of his ear – but
the lower half of the ear shows the batwing shape, making clear it's the same child.

As I explained in my June
30 post, the ear differences in the four photos result mainly from the different angles, lighting conditions, and lenses used to shoot the photos. Different lenses in particular would have caused the degree of ear "ruffledness" to appear variable in the photos: telephoto lenses flatten features, and wide-angle lenses exaggerate them. Whether corrective surgery or ear splints may have been used to improve the
ear's appearance – once a topic of much discussion – now seems irrelevant; all we really need to know is that the
child presented as Trig has in fact been Trig.

In his last email to me,
Griffin referred to himself as a "famous blogger." He has a large
readership, so he is famous in a sense. But the fact that he thinks of
himself in such terms perhaps reveals part of the problem: being "famous" in his own mind, with many acolytes effectively telling him in comments that he is practically infallible – but remember that he he nixes the dissenting voices – he may have convinced himself he is indeed infallible, and cannot bring himself to admit he made a mistake.

78 comments:

Gryphen also remains blind to many Johnston lies, probably to protect them. Obviously no one's trying to destroy anyone personally, but when young adults like our dear Sadie continue to live such extravagant lies instead of accepting adult responsibilities (ie getting a job, school), her "friends" are hurting her by kissing her ass.

It takes a while to realize that the babies are the same. I just recently agreed that the RNC Tri-g must have had a prosthetic to hide the imperfect ear. After relooking at several photos on the internet, I now believe a prosthesis was used. Up until then I truly beleived there were stand in Tri-gs used. Even still, there are some photos of a Tri-g with a thick neck and poor muscle tone that I have a hard time reconciling as the same as the main Tri-g, but it must be the same kid.The photo of TRi-g and TRipp hugging also sh0ws a child who looks different than vacation bible school Tri-g, but it must be the same kid.All things Palin are confusing. Are people deliberatley trying to mess with us? Sure. But we KNOW Palin did not birth TRi-g and that is all that matters.

Good work, Brad. I do see a similarity in all of the ears shown. FWIW, what about the droopy mouth? The baby in the hospital held by the grandmother had a droopy mouth, i.e., there is a long crease extending downward from the corner of the mouth only on one side. I see that crease in the baby at the convention, but not in every Trig picture. Not ruffles and not the baby in the birth announcement photo which looks like the baby referred to as ruffles. Of course, the baby in that birth announcement is cooing so I am not sure.

And I'll be honest, the two photos in the blog of Kristin Cole of Trig look like two babies on that one page, one fair and one not fair (and that one has that droopy mouth). One bigger than the other, and longer than the other, even the shape of the foreheads look different, but supposedly both are the same baby at the same baby shower. And one baby's pictures were not lined up with the other baby's pictures, but posted a row or two apart, like one set was added to deceive. Help me out there, Brad.

So I am confused, and I do want the truth. I have thought for awhile that the Palins and the Johnstons conspired together to help keep the Palin name in the news day in and day out. All that family drama, kids fighting, helped to sell books and interviews, even tv reality shows. Yeah, I can't help but think it's all PR work for Palin and to keep focus off of Trig.

As far as Gryphen, I think he has forgotten he is more than twice the age of the Palin and Johnston kids. I have read posts and comments there about the kids that made me feel dirty when I left. So I think he encourages hate. It was Palin's Deception that exposed that fake pregnancy, not Gryphen. All he promised was icebergs but they always melted away.

Straighten me out Brad, and thank you for all your work trying to expose the Palins' hoax. I sincerely appreciate all you have done. Thanks!

Anon: Are you yanking my chain? Droopy mouthy? Read my first seven posts in October -- the fist posts of this blog. You'll find everything I have to say about the photos you bring up. But I never heard anyone bring up a droopy mouth before -- that sort of question, plus your odd tone, is why I don't take you very seriously.

I heard that the oldest daughter had dated a guy from Juneau, Dylan Kolvig (google images for his photo). I read a blog comment from 2008 by someone who said that Dylan was the father of Trig, not Levi. When I saw Dylan's picture, I noticed his mouth and when I looked back at Trig, I saw that droopy mouth. I have mentioned it a few times on blogs just to be dissed, like you just did.

Sorry if you considered my post odd. I read your blog posts back in October, and I read Laura's posts, too. I have been a Trig Truther since October, 2008.

It shouldn't matter about the baby, who had the baby or how many babies, whatever. What matters is the fact that that woman was not pregnant in 2008 and the media failed to report that truth. And all the ears and family drama have done nothing but distract from exposing that fact.

Your analysis of the two Trigs evidence pretty much changed my mind that "Ruffles" was one of duplicate Trigs. Gryphen's most recent post on the subject certainly did not convince me otherwise. I was stunned by the blind acceptance of the poor quality image of a child with badly cut hair that Gryphen provided as evidence that that child had a deformed ear.

The above is by way of letting you know that because of your work I no longer accept the two Trigs theory.

That said, to me it comes across as whining for you to mention that you got called on the carpet for incorporating the two Trigs theory in your research because you uncritically swallowed Gryphen's posts. Seriously, that's on you and you alone.

I have noticed that Gryphen doesn't take kindly to "competition." You're not the first anti-Palin blogger he's had it in for, and from what I have seen his animosity is very much misplaced. I don't like that aspect of his blog.

However, I also can't blame in in some ways for his attitude. After all, you used Gryphen's research in your paper - did you even ask his permission? I will put it as a question because I have no idea if you asked him first, much less if you credited him or not. I would be interested to know that.

It's fair for you to call me whiny; but my point was I trusted Gryphen to be a serious researcher. But he wasn't and isn't. He ignored contradictory evidence that came out about four months after he posted his theory -- I did not see it till much later. He had willingly closed his eyes. So yeah, shame on me for being gullible and trusting him.

To ask if I got his permission to cite his research shows a misunderstanding on your part of how research works. You always give credit -- and my stuff has been well-documented -- that's a given in good scholarship. But anything that is published publicly can be cited.

As it happens, I had sent a copy of that article to Gryphen, and he was quite flattered at how I had made use of his research. But that was not obligatory.

To me, it seems we are wasting giant amounts of emotional energy on a point that does not matter much. It matters to two people in terms of insult and injury, but it matters not at all in our effort to uncover the cover-up, except to distract and divide us.

What's wrong with our position being "some say 'a'; others say 'b' "? There are so many red herrings and uncertain details that it seems predictable that we would disagree on points that do not have irrefutable datapoints. Are the ear photos irrefutable data points showing two boys? Brad says "no"; Gryphen says "yes."

Ruffled vs normal ears? Different dates of birth than stated? CBJ involved or not? The CBJ MD letter faked or not? Mat-Su hospital's role? Anchorage hospital's role, if any? Dar Miller's role, if any. Rex/Tank on the Palin payroll, deceiving Levi -- or not? SP's role in Sherry Johnston's imprisonment? Paxton involved in the hoax or not? Paxton involved in sponsoring SP to the GOP? SP involved in Menard death or not? The name Tripp and the personalized TRIPP license plate? The prostitution ring. The insurance billings for SDC (Step-Down Care) were for whom? Was the Gusty big-belly photo op and video shot as stated or taken way later, in Aug? I'm sure I've listed only half of the issues we have puzzled over without finding an irrefutable answer. Whatever scenario one proposes, one is sure to be wrong on some % of the conclusions, simply because so much remains unknown.

But we do have one irrefutable set of datapoints: The Mar 14 and other photos that document a flat profile for Palin only weeks before "delivering" Trig. So we are sure. Not "I'm pretty sure," or "I really do believe," or "I am convinced that . . ." -- our personal level of sureness re the various issues is irrelevant. Only irrefutable proof is of interest at this point.

And one reason for that is that no one new to this puzzle has the interest to look into each of these issues. They are way too complexificationized, long-winded, and dull to pay attention to. Let's just give newbies the ONE issue: SP was not pregnant as stated, and photos prove that. She hoaxed us. GOP VIPs enabled her and continue to cover up this hoax. The MSM won't report on it.

Let's not get into a pissing contest over small issues that divide us -- divide us too far to attend to the issue that unites us: this perfect example of a GOP dirty trick that needs to be exposed. To discourage similar dirty tricks in this fall's election. Or at least to make voters alert to them.

I realize I am not offering a solution or a path forward -- it's just that I hate to see two good people so annoyed at each other. Yes, each of you has plusses and minusses, and that's just the nature of us human beans.

What we need now is a breakthrough strategy of some kind. I wish I knew what it could be.

Amy -- There are good and bad ways of going about research, of forming hypotheses and testing them against all available evidence. I felt it was time to call Gryphen out for bad research methods. He has a large influence; and yes, it matters a lot if he is spreading disinformation because he doesn't have the integrity to revised his views based on new interpretations, or to share evidence for new interpretations with his readers. As I wrote, his behavior would be anathema to a true scholar.

Gryphen has never claimed to be either a scholar or a journalist. I expected more from your research efforts which is why I've been surprised from the beginning of your effort to prove a one-Trig theory.

As an example, consider your research regarding the distinctiveness of the shapes in Trig's external ear:

“To "test" that idea [of commonality of the shapes], I found the following illustration of 30 male ears, essentially chosen at random, from people arrested in New York City (flipped to put ears in same orientation as those above): “To my eye, not a single ear in this collection has the same three elements. No doubt if we looked at enough ears selected at random, we would find an ear similar to the two above. But I think it is safe to say the odds of getting, by chance, two ears that match up the way the two above do is less than 1 in 30.”http://scharlottsbeacon.blogspot.com/2011/10/trigs-vs-ruffles-ear-what-are-odds-of.html

First, there's no evidence that the 30 ears were chosen at random. Perhaps the ear choices were NOT random but, rather, were chosen because they were interesting/unique from the artist's perspective. The extent to which the drawings are true to life is also unknown. A quick look at the artist's website (found through google since I didn't see a link in your post) shows an interest in the unusual. Second, I don't see how the '30 male ears' image provides a rational basis for a 'safe' determination of the odds of matching ear shapes. Anyway, reducing the odds of similarly structured ears doesn't prove they are the same. http://www.shawnfeeney.com/2008/05/30-male-ears/

My personal experience is that the shapes in Trig's ear are common. At the moment, a family of four is visiting me. Two of the four have ear structure basically identical to the Palin baby photos. The ears or the other two, and my own ear, appear identical from certain angles. I agree with you that angles make a difference in ear appearance. The same outer ear shape can appear round or elfin depending on angle. However, I don't buy the concept that the deformity would disappear when viewed from the same angle and using a different lens.

curiouser: The ear deformity doesn't disappear, it just becomes less apparent. Look at the 2nd picture in Gryphen's composite -- the crinkles are there -- and yes, the lens focal length can make a huge difference in that regard. Telephoto lenses compress features, wide-angles lenses exaggerate.

Don't believe me? Go here:

http://www.dolcepics.com/articles/lenses-wide-vs-telephoto/

The author writes: "I affectionately refer to barrel distortion as the big-nose effect when used for portraiture. Although adults might not appreciate this look, I find it amusing to use for kids and animals. To avoid getting the big-nose effect, shoot your subject from further away and zoom in."

Or to paraphrase: to get big ruffled-ear effect, shoot with wide-angle lens (and I know the far-right Trig photo was taken with a wide-angle lens because of perspectives in the complete photo); to get compressed ruffles (i.e., smoother-looking ear), shoot with telephoto lens.

Please read that entire article.

Um, I've written maybe a dozen articles on this subject. I agree that your criticism from the article you quote from eight months ago may be fair. Thanks for the critique.

Also curiouser: Is it really logical to speak of a "one-baby theory"? Would not the assumption be that, in the absence of compelling proof, it is not really a "theory" that only one baby has been presented as Trig? The "theory" is Gryphen's -- the burden is on him to prove his theory. I'm simply saying the default assumption -- that there have not been various babies presented -- is probably correct.

Stop grandstanding, Mr.Scharlott You've brought absolutely no new information to the table in regards to the hoax. You wrote a half baked research paper based on facts already investigated and discussed openly online. I'm sorry but someone who wants to take all the shortcuts to find the truth and then grab the spotlight from all the other people who have spent the last four years searching for is just a tag along and a poser. You call yourself a reasearcher. Have you traveled to Alaska or is great research compiled fron Internet searches and then tossed into a Word document? I'm no fan of Gryphen, but your need to keep revisiting this subject because you disagree makes you look like a disturbed man. Move on and find some new information and post something worth while that leads us to the real truth about the Palin's. We've had enough dead end streets!

Again, the two-Trigs theory discredits everyone who is trying to uncover the truth. It's important to show that its persistence has more to do with one man's vanity than the strength of the theory or the evidence for it.

What research have you done on congenital ear malformations. As an auditory specialist who has seen thousands of ears, I don't find your photos convincing. Have you bothered to show all of the photos to pediatric otologists and audiologists? You say you are a serious researcher but I dont remember you doing this. You have absolutely no medical background. A good researcher would seek out medical opinions. I don't like everything about Gryphens blog, but at least he did this!! Who cares what Palins attorney wrote. That's what attorneys do. Try to make people feel bad and scared so they will stop what they are doing. A PHD doesn't prevent you from Palins wrath.

I'm not saying Gryphens theory is 100% correct. I don't know. But your dismissive attitude and lack of medical research does not make you look good. Neither do your personal attacks of Gryphen.

I agree with Amy who called this a pissing match. So what if people have different theories. And who the H are you to call people who believe the two ear theory crazy. All because of Palins lawyer? You are naive about how Sarah manipulates people.

Your research is shoddy. Interview some pediatric ear specialists and give them the photos objectively with no story or your own bias. You might be surprised what you find out.

This fighting and lack of respect for others views is not serving our cause well. You came on the scene four years after others had researched it and frankly you are hurting not helping the cause. Why would you air all this publically- putting Gryphen down. He had never done that to you and he could.

Babygate is important. People are allowed different opinions. Stop this petty fighting. Do your own research and present it and stop putting other bloggers down. It is petty and frankly destroys your own credibility. You may be right about the two ear theory. I don't think you are, but you might be. But this is not the way to prove it.

Gryphen claims to have had a medical doctor look into this. However, has there been a real doctor who was willing to come out publicly with their findings? I don't think so. Without that, we only have Gryphen's word. I think Brad has done a good job showing that Gryphen's word is not reliable. That's something I believed long before Brad wrote this post.

If you are correct, then it should be fairly easy to prove your point by photographing a person with "normal" ears in such a way as to make them appear deformed. Might be a good project for one of your classes.

I agree with you about "Ruffles" or the lack thereof. However, that's not what this post is about. It's about the fact that Gryphen can not look at this issue objectively because he's more concerned about his reputation. I agree with you on that point as well.

Gryphen has grown more arrogant and self-centered over the last couple of years. He claims to be one of the key people in the palindeceptions website (the original "Trig Truther" site) and pretends that he is the authority on this subject.

In fact, there are several good blogs (Politicalgates, this blog, Progressive Alaska) that Gryphen considers forbidden. Try to post anything from any of these blogs on his site and they will be rejected. Despite professing a desire to "find the truth", Gryphen uses an outdated commenting system so that he can censor the comments going onto his blog. He does NOT believe in open dialogue on his blog. He has to control the discussion the way he wants it. Just like Sarah!!

Gryphen has done very little original research on this topic. His main tactic is bragging that he knows privileged information but is sworn to secrecy. He regularly reports that the "iceberg" is coming soon. He said there was huge revelations coming out from Shailey Tripp. It never happened. He said "Fred's" book was coming out. It never did. I could go on and on.

Personally, I find him rather repulsive. You are absolutely right that not only is it distasteful, it is the opposite of good scientific endeavor which demands that all sides get to present their evidence. It's funny that he claims to reject religion but is website is subjected to his own biased dogma and he refuses to even acknowledge the existence of differing opinions.

I do not think Gryphen would lie, except maybe to protect a source, which is what principled journalists do. In other words, I think Gryphen is basically an honest and honorable man.

But it's a given in the word of research that investigators are biased in favor of their own hypotheses and theories. That's why elaborate protocols like double-blind experimental designs are used. In a blog, there are no automatic checks and balances. If a blogger rejects all comments that run counter to his own theories, which is what Gryphen has done, then you do not have a robust forum in which greater truth may emerge.

I recallf Laura Novak's blog last summer. She let ALL serious commenters say whatever they wanted, and those free-wheeling discussions were so helpful to me. As many might recall, Laura and I would post discussions between the two of us. Commenters would then point out weaknesses in our arguments, or add insights. I was open to criticism, and thanks to the feedback, I could see when I made mistakes, which I freely acknowledged (e.g., the Wooten/Trig idea was a mistake).

Gryphen cannot hope to find greater truth when the only comments he allows are the ones that support his point of view. He has created an echo chamber at his blog -- he only hears his own ideas being repeated back to him.

I think, Brad Scharlott, as I have since you published your original paper on the general subject, that you should stick to your premise that the mainstream media failed in reporting the bad vetting of Sarah Palin in 2008, including what they knew about the Gusty photographs and what magically disappeared from Alaska governmental websites.

I think your getting involved in this "two Trigs" conundrum is diminishing what professorial cachet you've accumulated since that original paper being published. Distance yourself, or risk more ridicule.

IM is a cesspool. No intelligent conversation, and the comments are disgusting. Ridiculing those girls on their weight, comments about incest, and the stupid theories about Bristol having 3-4 children before the age of 21. It's sick. That whole community has lost sight of what it was supposed to be.According to IM there's what? 4 or 5 kids running around? Ridiculous.Glad I found this blog. I'll be back. :)

Gryphen encourages it all. Note his post where the headline accuses Sarah of using breast implants. Wow! That's real mature. Sarah could go on Bristol's show and say "Do you hear these people are obsessed with whether my breasts are real?" That would make us look bad. Sorry, I don't want to be associated with that.

Fred, SP does not have breast implants but anyone with 20/20 vision can see she wears padded bras of some sort. There is no amount of photographic distortion that can account for the difference between her body shape during her unguarded moments on the Hawaii vacation or her recent photos with Bethenny Frankel, and the Belmont stakes photo or the jogging photo op in Hawaii.

I can't believe how irrelevant the ears are! and how mean-spirited we've become about them!

Let's say we PROVE that two babies is correct: So what? SP says, "okay, I DID borrow a friend's baby on those days, to give dear Trig a little rest." What part of the MSM is going to care about that? I don't care about it myself. What if SP used a "reborn" doll in the sling in this video? Really not a big deal. Let's say we PROVE one baby is correct and the ear ruffles are an illusion? Who cares?

If we have any hope of uncovering the cover-up, I think it will be via some concise, proof-only, essentials-only account of the story PLUS that je ne sais quoi new piece of data or new quote that catches bloggers' attention, goes viral, and somehow forces the hand of those who have successfully kept this unreported in the MSM for so long.

Steve Schmidt could do it. But he'd be outing McCain as either devious (he knew) or stupid (he did not know); this would surely limit Schmidt's career options. Andrew Sullivan collaborating with Schmidt? Wow! Add McGinniss and Dunn? I see a tell-all NYT full-page ad by these 4. But can we bloggers prevail against GOP VIP forces that can "discourage" IRS investigations, limit Alaska PD action re prostitution and arson, or muzzle the MSM? I don't see how.

I do not share the negative view of Gryphen. I think he WAS supportive of Audrey and became her choice of heir to her info. I know from personal experience that he has not allowed my comments mentioning Audrey's porn business or Fred's embezzling. I think we have to refrain from covering such things up. It is all part of this story, even the parts we might not like, or that might give us credibility problems. And we must remind ourselves that there was much to appreciate in Audrey's investigation and writing. And the new "Fred" book might similarly give us important new info -- but of course we have to actually see/read it to know.

Brad: if you pursue ear discussions, please engage MD experts. Don't got for DIY model buildling and shooting tricky photos: that will not serve as proof.

Excellent points. As to a negative view of Gryphon, can't you see how things have changed in the last year? That community has turned into exactly what the ridicule. Any comment even suggesting that they may be wrong, no matter how small is instantly attacked as a "troll". You have to admit it's not what it used to be. I think it's downright counterproductive to the entire cause.It's just gross at this point.

I agree that even proving Sarah used a double for Trig doesn't get to the core of babygate.

I don't think that Gryphen is the rightful "heir" of Audrey's data. I doubt whether that's what she intended. In any event, this is information that can not be OWNED by anyone. If we're really interested in the truth, we welcome all different blogs, etc. that analyze this issue. Instead, Gryphen does think he owns this issue and that's why he censors all mention of similar blogs and dissenting opinions.

The comments on IM are very infantile. He's got his own 'bots' and that's the way he likes it. He doesn't want them to know there's another world out there. I've posted things challenging him on this or that (He does occasionally let things through, but don't link to Politicalgates.), and his bots call me a troll. Some have even called me 'Bristol' herself! I've stopped reading them as I rarely find anything interesting in them.

It's really sad that the Trig Truthers has come to be such a fractured community. I do hold Gryphen responsible for most of it.

This post points up the underlying problem of the babygate blogosphere. Gryphen is not only the "heir" to Audrey's info, the two have been collaborating for years now. All of the Alaskan bloggers know this and have met Audrey. This is not a closely kept secret.

If porn-lawyer and embezzler "Fred's" book, which is only a front for porn mistress Audrey, ever sees the light of day, the Palins will have more than enough ammunition to discredit all of babygate and taint everyone who has been involved in these efforts.

And none of the people involved in this, most especially not Audrey nor Gryphen, are conducting this for altruistic motives and will not hand over their info to more legitimate outlets.

Fred - I agree with you about hte evolving tenor over on IM. I too have been called a troll for asking questions. I don't read the comments anymore and I'm getting more and more disgusted with the tenor of the posts. I don't like SP's politics, but it doesn't mean every bad thing sad about her is true.

As Brad said, the burden of proof is on the person proposing this theory.

What if I proposed that there were identical triplets? You could not prove me wrong. But the burden of proof would be on me to show that there is at least two identical versions of Trig. Without such evidence, you'd have no reason to believe me.

Fred - Why is there a burden of proof anywhere, or on anyone? This isn't a court of law. Besides science and research isn't about finding hypotheses that are true and arguing only for those. And science and research is filled with wrong conclusions clung to for years, and rejected conclusions that were right. It's about testing hypotheses, some of which turn out to be right, and some of which turn out to be wrong. Fred telling me that lenses explain the ruffled ear is an interesting hypoetheses, but I've seen nothing to back it up other than his assertion that lenses explain the pictures. I'm open to the proposition that Brad is right, but I don't know that yet.

I read both IM and you. IM more often. Your pictures are interesting, and have made me wonder, but so do the ruffled ear pictures. Your analysis doesn't convince me I didn't see what I think I saw. I do however, see your superimposed pictures. I agree with the earlier poster. Get me a medical opinion that says what we think is a ruffled ear really isn't, and that your superimposed picture is proof. At the moment, trying to make sense of two things - your superimposed ear, and the ruffled pictures, I'm thinking they are related and inherited the same ear, or are identical twins. I've often thought the theory that Bristol gave birth prior to the convention and was wrapped up to look odd was to make her look pregnant and hide lactating breasts leakage was a possibility. And wondering if they are twins doesn't mean Trig & Trip are twins. I have gotten turned off by the attitude over at IM and the gratuitous name. I've also gotten turned off by your aggressive approach IM. I still read both of you for what I can learn, but I take each of you with a grain of salt.

Gryphen and I agree that the first and fourth kids in the final composite are the same; the question, then, is can the second and third be the same as the first and fourth. That's an optical/perceptual question, not a medical question. And I teach about optics in my photojournalism class; I have the expertise to make an informed judgment.

I do a lot of photography myself. It's interesting how a series of photos from the same person can look so different from photo to photo. I'm no expert on ear photography, but I'd imagine that the changing of the angle, lighting, etc. could make the same ear look very different.

The fact that so much is being assumed on a couple of grainy photos is disturbing to me.

Yes, Fred, exactly. The burden of proof is on those who wish to claim there are multiple babies. If there is a reasonable explanation for apparent difference, like different lenses, etc., shouldn't that be assumed to be correct? Why do some people take as the starting position that there likely were multiple babies, and suggest the burden of proof is on those who argue otherwise? Who comes off as wearing tin-foil hats in this debate?

It's also interesting that medical experts in the field of ENT saw a ruffled ear and not a photography illusion.

Insisting you are an expert in photography and don't need to go further may satisfy you, it may even be sufficient in fact, but it doesn't answer my questions.

This isn't a court of law so there is no burden of proof. That's an odd & curious way to view this. As a person, I reacted to the ruffled ears photos with lots of questions. The superimposed pictures create more questions. No one has a burden to prove anything (except maybe SP, and perhaps Bristol).

Perhaps both you and Gryphen's positions could be accurate - and there are twins, or very similar siblings.

As best I can tell, you are more entrenched with disdain for those who don't buy your conclusions, than Gryphen is in insisting others hold his view (although I am finding the gratuitous name-calling over at IM, by Gryphen and his posters, to become nauseating)

I'm just another person with lots of questions. The disdain in which you hold those of us with such questions doesn't allow for much discussion.

The point of the article is that Gryphen is not even allowing dissenting views to be displayed on his blog. We all know that he censors his posts. As Brad put it, that is intellectual dishonesty.

Brad has made his arguments. He's not saying he's definitely right. I'm sure he'd admit he could be wrong. We all are entitled to our opinions on this and any subject. That's how science works in the real world.

I read through Gryphen's articles on the ruffled ears. I don't recall any doctors willing to put their name to the analysis that Gryphen presented. If you can find a documented statement from a medical doctor please present it to us. I don't think I ever saw this.

Fred - I didn't realize Gryphen was censoring his blog. If true, I think that would be a more effective headline regarding the issue. I thought he was focused on wanting Gryphen to stop encouraging the two baby theory.

Brad - I'm curious. I thought I heard that you thought you were right - there was definitively not two babies. Is Fred right - you realize you might be wrong? I had the definite impression that Brad was trying to silence Gryphen's opinion.

I agree with you, I don't think Gryphen provided names of doctors, although I haven't gone back to look.

Try to put a link to this article in a comment on IM. Or try to discuss this issue in a comment. The comment will get rejected. I would agree that an article on Gryphen censoring comments would be newsworthy. You could even have people test what gets through and what doesn't. (It varies.)

I hate to speak for Brad but I'd bet that while he firmly believes right now that there are NOT two babies, that he would be open to changing his mind if additional evidence were presented that supports the two baby theory. I know that's the way I feel. Again, that's the way a scientific mind should work.

I'm pretty sure Gryphen said he talked to some doctors on this but I don't recall seeing any names of doctors mentioned. Sorry, given his behavior, as noticed myself and documented by Brad here, I think Gryphen is biased on this because it's "his" issue and he would look bad if it were not true after he promoted it so heavily.

Lucy - Sure, I could be wrong. I just think the preponderance of evidence points to one baby. Or put it this way: one baby is what you'd expect. Wouldn't you need some pretty damn convincing evidence to strongly argue for more than one? The evidence for more than one strikes me as extremely weak. And pushing that idea makes lots of people look like tin-hat wearers.

I guess if this was a court of law you might be right (I still need to read the article; I can see how ears could be different from different lenses, but not clear yet on how they could hide a ruffled ear. I'll get to it)

But this isn't a court of law. And given that we are talking about SP, I don't think what's most the most likely explanation for most women applies here. I think she has deliberately manipulated the press before (as you pointed out about the baby in Arkansas - I think it was Arkansas) and set out to encourage the wrong conclusion and then claims bias. I do think SP is capable of two babies. I think she has grandiose ideas at times. I don't presume the same logical decision making as I assume for most people. I'm not on a jury and don't have decide if there is enough evidence. This is more of a science questions, and I think it's reasonable to keep gathering information and forming hypoetheses and entertain both theories until something connects all the dots. Nothing connects all the dots right now for me.

One baby is what I would expect from every other national political candidate in America - even Michelle Bachman. I don't have the same expectation or confidence in SP.

Hmm. FEW additional thoughts. If there wasn't other evidnece that something was funky I might agree with you. But there is so much funkiness around the birth of Trig that I don't consider this question in isolation. What's the likelihood a VP candidate for a major (or minor) party would fake a pregnancy? and get away with it? would invite her daughter's boyfriend to the hospital? the boyfriend would hold the baby looking like a father, not an awkward teenager around babies. ETc. etc. There's nothing normal about this birth.

I don't think anyone took two babies as a starting position. There were just so many questions (why is Sally holding a baby that doens't look like a premie; why is Levi kissing the baby of his girlfriend's mother in a way that he looks like a father, etc. etc.) There may be answers to these questions, but amid numerous oddities, appear the ruffled ears. More questions. I can't imagine anyone who started with an assumption of two babies. I actually think it's disingenous to phrase the issue that way.

No one is disputing the baby had a "ruffled" ear. Trig today still has a ruffled ear. The only real question is, Did the ear that looked less ruffled at RNC and later belong to a different child, or could the optics of different lenses, etc., explain the apparent differences in "ruffledness" -- that's not a medical question, it's an optical question. So, again: telephoto lenses flatten features, wide-angle lenses exaggerate features; head-on lighting flattens, side lighting exaggerates; and so on. It's basic stuff any photographer will tell you is true.

It's the same child throughout; the seeming difference in the ear are due to optical differences. What role would an ear doctor play in this discussion? We've already established the first and fourth photos in the last composite are the same child, and that child has a ruffled ear.

OK, Brad, your position is that the baby had a ruffled ear and still has a ruffled ear today as seen in the vacation bible school photo? But all of the photos taken by professional photojournalists and others in the intervening years showing a perfectly formed ear were photographic distortions?

I agree that photographic distortions can and do occur. However, from years of observation and reading on this subject, I believe the following: the infant presented as Trig at the shower had a severely deformed ("ruffled") ear; the baby presented as Trig at the RNC and on the campaign trail had perfect ears; the child presented as Trig now (at Bible school and in Bristol's TV show) has a somewhat deformed ("ruffled") ear.

I cannot explain why the intermediate Trig -- in dozens of photos I've seen -- showed no ear deformities.

IMO, there's no definitive proof for either Gryphen's or Brad's theory. It's just another frustrating, insoluable Palin puzzle.

I agree with you. I've read the articles suggested. I've looked at pictures. I don't think Brad's theory is anymore definitive than IM's - and that's being a scholar. Leaving open a resolution until the facts add up and considering various scenarios to account for all the evidence. I don't think ruffles ears are corrected by age. I don't think preemies are just smaller full-term babies. They have identifiable quantifiable characteristics which have been identified. It's not just an issue of losing weight after going home.

My only difference with you is I'm not sure it will NEVER be solved (not sure it will ever be made known either - I just still have hope).

< If there is a reasonable explanation for apparent difference, like different lenses, etc., shouldn't that be assumed to be correct?>

I don't think science has progressed this way, nor does the court system work this way. Conventional wisdom has been wrong soooooooo often. "Wacky" theories have been found to be true more often than is comfortable.*

If I had to make an important decision, I suppose going with the reasonable explanation would probably be the best idea. But I don't have to make any decisions - just asking questions and pondering the possibilities.

* E.G.: doctors resisted the idea that they needed to wash their hands and dismissed it as wacko. It took decades for germ theory to become accepted (including one guy who didn't believe it swallowing cholera water - and didn't die).

Darwin's theory of evolution wasn't accepted for a long time and it took more and more data to be added to become accepted.

I don't know the answer. I just know I'm not done asking questions. And I don't know enough about the effect of various lenses to trust your explanation. It doesn't look like a lense issue to me. I may be naive, ignorant and wrong, but I don't believe much of anyone just because they say they know. I need to understand how a lense could do what does not look like an lens issue ot me.

I was a midwife for 8 years. Babies come out, for lack of a better word, squished. I have seen babies come out with squished heads, hands, feet and yes, ears. Babies are amazingly resilient, they adapt. From the inside world, to the out. There are no twins.There are no two babies.There is only one Trigg.His ear may have been deformed at birth but time took care if it.Occam's razor. Think about it.

On what basis do you assert this? I've seen squished babies and the ear did't look ruffled like that. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying your conclusions are outside my life experience so I'm still confused and I can't believe something based on your life experience that contradicts my life experience. I need to know more.

Why does babies being squished mean that there weren't twins.

How did time take care of the ear. IF it is a ruffled ear, time wouldn't take care of that.

I continue to ponder this. I realize that in all my years, over half a century, I have never seen a picture of a baby with a ruffled ear. It's possible that for some reason the stars aligned and what we got were pictures of the same baby with different looking ears. Or it's possible my epxerience is limited. But given that I have NEVER seen that phenomena before resultingin a ruffled ear, I'm not sure lens choice makes for the simplist explanation. Two babies seems to me a simpler explanation - and I'm not sure that is the truth either. I don't know the truth,and I'm curious as to what the truth is.Lucy

The author writes: "I affectionately refer to barrel distortion as the big-nose effect when used for portraiture. Although adults might not appreciate this look, I find it amusing to use for kids and animals. To avoid getting the big-nose effect, shoot your subject from further away and zoom in."

Or to paraphrase: to get big ruffled-ear effect, shoot with wide-angle lens (and I know the far-right photo was taken with a wide-angle lens because of perspectives in the complete photo); to get compressed ruffles (i.e., smoother-looking ear), shoot with telephoto lens.

Gosh, you can do this experimentally yourself. Let's say you have a fairly common digital zoom camera with a 5x lens -- it will probably go from wide-angle (shortest length) to medium telephoto (longest). At the shortest length, get real close to someone's ear and take that picture. Now, go across the room and shoot the same ear, from the same angle, but at the longest lens setting.

Get both pictures on your computer screen, but crop them both to fill an 8 by 10 picture, and then compare. The difference will amaze you. And that will be due to just one factor: lens length.

Keep experimenting and vary angle and lighting as well.

Or go here:

http://www.dolcepics.com/articles/lenses-wide-vs-telephoto/

Scroll down about 1/3 of total and look at the huge ear on that little girl! It was shot at a wide-angle setting. Now scroll down half-way and look at her ear as she is sleeping. Different angle, but the ear is not huge anymore -- it was short at near "normal" lens length.

I imagine I'm missing something. I'm not a phtographer of any sort. I see the size of the child's ear changing appearance as you described. I don't see the size of the ear looking weird. My mind naturally adjusted and I saw a picture of a cute kid.

I still don't see how a clearly ruffled ear will look smooth due to lens. I look at the little girl's ear, and even with hair covering over as in Trig's latest photo, it looks like a normal ear. Trig's ear sometimes looks normal and sometimes ruffled. I can't account for it by hair or lens.

Perhaps a lens can change the shape of an ear, and not just size distortion, but I haven't seen the pictures to show me how that happened.

Brad, I'm in agreement with you. Furthermore, I respect that you can publicly say you've made mistakes. You have brought positive attention and credibility to the Palin birth hoax theory and posts like this continue to do so. While you made a couple wrong turns, well, at least you admitted to having made them and have stayed out in the open in your search to find the truth, wherever that may lead.

I am late to follow up here, but I've been having this thought for a long time and don't know what to make of it. I might be totally crazy and I am ok with being told so, LOL. What about that picture of Todd feeding Trig a bottle in the kitchen, where he had him kind of lying on the counter/island and there was a high chair in the background, and two other bottles in the foreground. The bottles all had different colored nipple rings/what do you call those (I breastfed so I am guessing?) the plastic part that you screw the nipple to the bottle with...anyway, the two that were sitting there appeared to have been mostly finished, but there was some left in them, different amounts, though. IF that was breast milk - and Sarah did claim she breastfed/pumped, that milk would have been like liquid GOLD and would have been saved for the next feeding, not sitting out on the table like that, obviously what would have been hours later. Even with formula, who leaves two old bottles sitting out? Those would have been dumped and at least set aside to wash. I know this sounds very simple and very naive but I know so many moms and nobody I have ever known would have had bottles sitting around like that (especially knowing someone was there to take pictures, OMG!) SO...add to that, the names. TRI-g TRI-pp TRI-stan (if that child even exists, who knows) TRI = 3. Triplets. Whose, though? And I obviously spend too much time thinking about this!

Oh wait, also that old pic of Levi at the Palin house holding Trig on his lap and another hand was there, said to be a COUSIN? Why would he have been the one holding them for pictures when there were NONE of Sarah, Todd, or even Bristol? And a few more things - in a pic Bristol recently posted on her public FB page, it shows Trig and Tripp but in the background is what appears to be a girl the SAME AGE as them in one of those non-walking contraptions/swing things - no mention is made of her in the comments on the picture. Might be nothing, but...and also (too!), in almost every picture of Tripp where he is in a stroller, it's a double stroller, but it's cut off so we're not supposed to know. I had three kids in 3 years' time and I know what a double stroller looks like LOL - but I also know it's odd that Bristol would have to care for two babies so close in age if they weren't both hers. It's hard enough with ONE.

OK another pic she posted shows her with Trig in a backpack, supposedly recently. And she captioned it something like "this is the last time I carry Trig in a backpack." OK so...if she was taking HIM for a walk/hike, wouldn't she also have Tripp with her. Who takes someone else's baby and leaves her own home? There was no stroller in the pic, but since they are the same size apparently, why wouldn't she have had the double stroller if indeed one was in the stroller?

Why, in the picture of Britta showing the baby shower gifts, was there a big boy bed (made up for a child, apparent a boy child) and a crib? And who was the baby in the pictures? And what ever happened to their wedding? And why the strange blogging she did while supposedly in Spain that abruptly ended but seemed to be planted for the public to see? And why was she the caregiver of Trig on the campaign trail when money was no object and they could have hired a proper nanny?I know I sound crazy to some people - but I am a mom of three and nothing this family does with their kids makes any sense to me, it's making me crazy if I wasn't already. I am sure I am not any more "right" about this than anyone else, but these are some of the many things that make me go "hmmmm" in a big way.JillyG

I'm also entertaining the thought of twins plus a singleton - their pics all tell a different story - but it just seems that these babies all belong to one person, and that person is not Sarah Palin. They seem to delight in throwing us off he course by showing old pics and then new ones, and getting the names wrong, and then Bristol calls out a rag mag for insinuating that they incorrectly identified her "brother" Trig on their cover, when they never did identify. Sherry and Mercede and then Levi and Sunny have on and off made some swats at the Palins, but then retreat, and the timing is always suspect for so many reasons I can't begin to explain, and I assume you all know already what I mean. I hate to think that the Johnstons are in on it, but to my not usually into conspiracy theories and pretty damned on the ball mind, they have to be. We've been HAD in so many ways, and it pisses me off. I want the truth to come out so that family will stop f-ing with us for their own personal (and by proxy, political) gain. They need to be exposed. Brad, thank you for keeping this up. I had thought you'd given up.JillyG again...too lazy to log in (plus my husband works for a major competitor of Google and I feel guilty sometimes when I log in that way!LOL)

Sounds like an all too well case of "we're on the same side, oh wait one is getting more and more attention than I am and ummm, well now we're competing against each other now". Please you're no better than what you say about Gryphen.